There's no nice way to say this. More often than not, an adaptation of a comic, or book, or video game, isn't as good as the original. But, and more often than we'd like to think, sometimes it really is better.

This can be for a variety of reasons: The movie puts something fairly conventional in the hands of an artist; the TV show brings a story back to its essence. But nonetheless, it happens, and there are more than a few examples out there.

For example!

The virtues and frustrations of Kick-Ass can all be summed up with one name: Mark Millar. Millar's problem, as a writer, is that he wants to be "edgy" but his concept of edgy is hit-or-miss. Hit-Girl is a hilarious character, but finishing off a villain with a groin injury is so commonplace not even the Punisher bothers with it anymore. When Millar stops trying to impress us with how edgy he is and just writes a comic book, the results are amazing, but too often, that tendency to be "edgy" gets in his own way.

Fortunately, with the movie, they were able to keep most of the story, and even some of the splat, while tweaking it just enough to keep faithful to the spirit of the book. Matthew Vaughn, who knows just how to make a movie over the top, kept everything that made the comic fun while redirecting the gross-outs and rude gestures just enough to make them genuinely funny.

Admit it: You've never read Jurassic Park, or if you have, it was somewhere around 1993. Steven Spielberg has a rarely discussed ability, as a producer and director, to shave away a lot of the crap that encumbers beach reads to get at the core of the story, and it elevated this movie substantially. It was something Michael Crichton needed in general, and this book in particular; there's such a thing as overexplaining, and the book was very, very prone to it.

Can we all just admit that Game Of Thrones, as a series of books, is prone to the absolute worst habits in high fantasy writing? Every single book is the size of a brick, George R.R. Martin often gets lost in minutiae, and if the cast weren't bumped off at a nice clip, it'd make The Wheel Of Time look like a Beckett play. When Martin is on the ball, he's on the ball, but when he's off... oh brother.

Which is why the HBO series is so great. It gives the story the room it needs to breathe, while simultaneously forcing the story to actually have more focus. Any book that needs an index is a book with a problem, but the show is clever in how it sorts out and presents plotlines so that you can follow along without losing the thread.

Also, this is so much more satisfying on film:

Robert E. Howard invented fantasy and deserves the praise he's gotten, but realistically speaking, a faithful adaptation is tough, both because of Howard's penchant for writing stories that were close to prose-poems in some cases, and also, well, all the screaming racism. John Milius, of all people, pulled it off, partially through two masterstrokes of casting, and partially because he knew capturing the dream feeling of the stories would involve a more subtle touch than, say, what happened in Conan the Destroyer.

It's rare that an original screenplay comes to theaters fully intact, and while the original movie of Buffy The Vampire Slayer had its moments, ultimately it's less than surprising it was a cult film. The show, however, managed to work, bar some argument over the last two seasons, not least because it could play on horror stories as metaphors. Horror really works best when it's using fantasy creatures to discuss what we're really scared of and although Buffy as a show is decidedly uneven, at its best it could riff on problems every teenager deals with in an intelligent way.

Any we missed? Any you think we're wrong on? Let us know in the comments.

That part I don’t remember. Red Son is quite good as a story, and Millar’s run on Ultimate X-Men is a damn near perfect retelling of an origin story. Kick-Ass if I’m being honest I’m mostly annoyed by the tone. Telling comic book fans you can’t be a superhero in real life seems to be the epitome of missing the point.

I think Millar is good when forced to reel in the over the top stuff: Ultimate X-Men, Wolverine, etc. But when left to his own devices he’s over the top and his stories get overshadowed by gratuitous violence, sexism etc.

Yeah NO. That movie blew and it was such a waste of what could have been such an original story. There are so so so few movies where the villain wins this movie could have been something unique.

Not to mention casting was already fucking done for them!!! Eminem, Hallie Berry, and Tommy Lee Jones were the models off the characters, just throw money at them and you’re done. How do you fuck THAT up?

Somewhat agreed. Kick-Ass the movie is street ahead of the comic but I enjoyed his Ultimate X-Men, Red Son, Wanted (though I have serious misgivings about it), and Wolverine. But his other stuff is meh at best. And I HATED his Ultimates, ESPECIALLY his Ultimate Cap.

@martin I didn’t know about the Morrison stuff til I went searching yesterday and saw all the theories. It is plausible and would be a shame.

@Mayorjimmy you did see that I said the movie sucked. It just sucked less and in a different way than the book.

@DavidDTSS A strong editor is good. Unfortunately he appears to be at the point where he’s bigger than the editor which can be unfortunate. Though arguably both Marvel and DC have some stupidity in their chief editor position that generates other suck.

I’d recommend ‘America’, ‘Democracy’, ‘Day of Chaos’ and ‘Trifecta’ as examples of Judge Dredd stories that are better than Dredd. As a big Dredd fan I have to admit that some of the early stuff is pretty damn cheesy

Had to make an account just to comment. I could’ve tolerated Jurassic Park as being better than the book (even though there are a lot of action scenes in, some of which were adapted in the sequels), but ASOIAF is so vastly superior to Game of Thrones that its not even funny.

I am with Hammer. Too much of the GoT show has been compromised by budget concerns. I love the show, but I like the fact that I can actually be a part of a battle as an observer rather than have a quick character recapitulation of it.

Meh, I’d rather get 10 fast-food meals a year than one banquet every five years. Again, it doesn’t mean either is VASTLY superior to the other whichever side of the fence you sit on. I’m just on the show’s side…every week is an event.

It’s the same old story of how each medium has its own strengths and weaknesses.

No TV show could ever hope to match the scope and lavishness that Martin describes in the book. Even with HBO’s budget, the show often looks and feels constricted because you just know they don’t have the kind of money to create sets and sceneries of the size described.

Yes, obviously the show feels faster. That’s what happens if you have to condense so much material into just 10 hours. But apart from that, the show simply isn’t always using it to its strength. They have a chance to cut the fat and focus on the most interesting storylines and yet we get more goes-nowhere nudity scenes and pointless stuff about how big Podrick’s dick is. Really? That’s focusing on the interesting parts?

So overall I think the books describe a more interesting world and story, even if they have some tedious parts but someone who prefers the show maybe just doesn’t like reading books, idk.

The books have a more logical structure as to characters motives and intertwined outcomes. Like Brienne and Jaime visiting the same inn as Arya right before she gets there. The war movements and interplay of actions is far greater.

That said the show both makes more adult characters and chooses to focus on more adult characters. We get a lot more Tywin Lannister, Varys, Baelish, and less reading from Bran and Arya (kind of spoilers: the cat of the canals chapter may be the worst fucking thing in the entire series)

I’ll add Reident Evil to this list. The first two parts were absolutely excellent and far far superior to those mind numbingly dull games they were based on. Honestly I felt like shooting myself when I played. I am so glad they ditched them in the movies for the most part. In fact as the last part painfully show the father away the movies are from the games the better they are

Well, I was trying to stick to geeky sources. If we want to talk general movies compared to their books, we’ll be here all days. “Jaws”, the book, was godawful. “Psycho” is actually a great book, but the movie is a lot better. Really I could turn out a list of twenty.

Oh yeah, bro…Peter Benchley’s novel was a summer reading smash back in the day. Thankfully Spielberg cut out all the awful “romantic triangle/revenge” crap between the Chief, his wife and Hooper. Christ, that was just sickening…

Oh my GOD I completely blanked that from my memory. And seeing Benchley’s name reminded me of the miniseries of The Beast, the star making turn for the dude from CSI. I remember when I was a kid being really excited for that miniseries and Storm of the Century. I was not a bright child.

Definitely agree with Kickass and Jurassic Park. Fight Club would also be a good shout. However I’m not sure I agree with Game of Thrones. I LOVE the HBO show and believe that it is the best possible asioaf adaption there could possibly be, however the books are certified modern fantasy masterpieces. The attention to detail, the depth, the characters are all phenomenal. I must admit not all the books are stellar, I have a love/hate relationship with Dance with Dragons and Feast for Crows is painfully slow but Storm of Swords is… I’m gonna say it… The Greatest fantasy novel of all time.

it insane for me to think anyone could enjoy the show GoT over the books. You miss so much in the show for backstory. It’s such a deep, rich world that GoT barely does it justice. Martin ruined fantasy novels for me simply because his benchmark is so high. Also the casting is confusing for anyone not familiar with the characters and story as everyone looks so similar and has so little individual screen time that it would take lots of rewatching and rewinding to sort identities out.

The backstory is great (and two years on I’m still upset that they didn’t manage to work in the Tower of Joy flashback), but Martin spendsfar too much time on irrelevant details. Like, I don’t give a damn what’s being eaten at the feast, I just need to know that there’s a feast on.

My problem with brick-like fantasy books is that there’s a fine line between “rich detail” and “useless padding.” A really good fantasy story has a rich, thought-out world behind it, but you show that by telling the story. The detail’s there if you want it, but it’s not necessary.

Seriously, that kills books. A really good lit professor had us read Moby Dick, but he gave some of us the abridged version, which cuts out all the outdated science, and some of us the full book. Then he let us argue for thirty minutes before revealing what he’d done. It was a great lesson on story structure.

I never really felt like Martin was wasting time / stalling / padding his books until the last one. I was a little miffed by how little actually happened in that one. Of course, I do understand that the TV show, his celebrity, and whatever other distractions have popped up since the show because a hit, have really eaten in to his writing momentum.

That’s why I think The Hobbit still takes the cake as the best fantasy novel. It moves a lot better than other books. I’d probably put the Redwall books second but even Brian Jacques is guilty of “and this is what was at the feast” writing.

The direwolves and the legacies of the Starks and Targaryens are the best parts of the series and are virtually absent from the show. There’s an entire sublayer to the world and a level of immersion that I’ve only gotten from Martin in the series. I hated the LoTR trilogy and also vastly enjoyed The Hobbit more but that’s because Tolkien didnt have the same way with prose as Martin does. Perhaps if you’re readin the books post GoT you’re looking more for the meat of the story and want to be rushed through but when entering the books initially it was an eye opening experience on how to write fantasy fiction.

A family member just told me recently about a B&B somewhere in Maryland that’s owned by Nora Roberts and every room is themed on a famous couple from literature. She stayed in the Westley and Buttercup room. My first thought was “son of a bitch I forgot that was a book.” JUST LIKE JAWS.

The Watchmen. The graphic novel moves SO slow. The first 2 books are just like “someone killed an ex hero so that means they must be after all of us.” Cut to EVERY other saying “You’re retarded.” The movie moved things along so smoothly. IMO

The Game Of Thrones books are substantially better than the show. And I actually like the show.
Also, the Lord Of The Rings trilogy take all the best parts of the books and toss out all the crap (all that goddamn singing, mostly).
Also, Blade Runner blows the fucking doors off Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep.
And…this one is a bit of a stretch, but Apocalypse Now is based on Heart of Darkness and, guess what, Conrad, your book just got whupped by Coppala’s vision of the decent in to madness.

Boy, if THAT’s “literally” the stupidest thing you’ve ever read on the internet, you live a very sheltered internet life. Go google “Answers by yahoo.com,” “9/11 conspiracy,” “Jennifer Rubin,” or “The Daily Caller.”

I disagree with Game of thrones vs. A song of ice and fire. You’re exactly right about the minutiae of families, land history and physical descriptions but all the major moments in the show so far were better in the books
-Black Water
-Red Wedding
-Everything Davos does
-the battle of green fork which the show sidestepped by having Tyrion knocked out before the battle started
-The Iron throne is too safe looking to sit on, it should have cut Joffrey as it cut Aerys, and the whole myth that the throne itself can pick who is a good ruler
-Also The Brotherhood without Banners were soo much cooler in the books. Replacing Edric Storm with Gendry on the show makes it look like the brotherhood is only in it for the money and not standing up for the little guy which is what they are

I’m re-reading the books right now and I’ll be honest the minutiae of the families and land histories has been FASCINATING. On the first read through my eyes really glossed over at a lot of the history but now that I’m more familiar with the main characters I feel like I’m getting a lot more out of it. The stuff with the Targaryens back story is really interesting. Plus all the details I missed on Robert’s rebellion have been cool.

Hey, Michael Caine isn’t in the film, either. He’s in Jaws: The Revenge, which even if he wasn’t in it would still be a colossal improvement on the book. In which a waterskiing drug lord gets attacked by the shark while machine-gunning a man dressed in a bunny suit.

Walking Dead, I might be the only Dinosaur out there that likes the show better than the comics. I tried rereading all the TPBs the other day and I had to stop around 6th one, that shit is WAY to bleak. now that I have a son reading about Carl becoming a twisted mess was just too much for me.

I should probably reread it as It’s been a while, but I remember loving the film, but still coming away feeling the comic was superior. One main point is that it really bugs me that he gets the girl in the film.